Here's what you need to know when it comes to Blue Moons. One: they aren't blue (or rather, no more or less blue than any other full Moon). And two: there's some disagreement over the definition of what a "Blue Moon" really is. For instance: if you're a purist, next month's Blue Moon isn't technically a Blue Moon at all.

Advertisement

Generally speaking, seasons and calendar months tend to match up pretty well, chronologically, with the phases of the moon. The year is divided up into four seasons, with three full Moons per season; or, alternatively, twelve months, with one full Moon per month.

But nature has a knack for falling out of sync with humanity's timekeeping methods. Consequently, sometimes one of the season will cram in four full Moons instead of three, giving rise to 13 full Moons in a year instead of the usual 12. This happens, on average, about once every 2.7 years.

Traditionally, it is the third full Moon in a season containing four full Moons that is referred to as a "blue" moon. It bears mentioning that, according to this definition, there is actually no Blue Moon in 2012. The summer season — i.e. the time between the summer solstice (June 21) and the vernal equinox (September 22) contains the standard three full Moons, as do the rest of the year's seasons. So why is everyone calling next month's Moon a blue one?

Because in 1946, the definition of Blue Moon was accidentally expanded to include instances where two full Moons occur in the span of a single calendar month. In cases such as these, the second full Moon of the month (not the third full Moon of a four full-Moon season) is referred to as a Blue Moon.

The newer definition makes it possible for a Blue Moon to occur even during a year with a normal seasonal distribution of full Moons. Interestingly, it also makes it possible for two Blue Moons to occur in a single calendar year. The last time this happened was in 1999, when there were two full Moons in January, two full Moons in March, and no full Moon in February. It also gives rise to weird geography- and timezone-dependent technicalities; this year, time zones east of UTC+09 will experience two full Moons in the month of September instead of August (once on September 1, and again on September 30th), which means that their Blue Moon will actually occur at the end of September, rather than the end of August.

So which definition is better? That depends on who you ask. Personally, I like EarthSky's stance on the issue:

In recent years, a controversy has raged — mainly among purists — about which Blue Moon definition is better. The idea of a Blue Moon as the third of four in a season may be older than the idea of a Blue Moon as the second full moon in a month. Is it better? Is one definition right and the other wrong? After all, this is folklore. So the folk get to decide, and, in the 21st century, both sorts of full moons have been called Blue.